The Department of International Relations at the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies sent to Guesmans, the well-known secretary of the bankrupt Second International that has gone over to the side of "their own," national governments, a communication printed in No. 78 of *Izvestiya*.

This communication attempts to prove that one cannot "equate" the entry of Russian populists and Mensheviks into a bourgeois and imperialist government with the entry of Western European traitors to socialism into "their" governments. The arguments of the "department" are so weak and pathetic, so laughably helpless, that it is necessary once more and yet again to expose them in all their repugnance.

Argument 1st. In other countries, entry into government took place "under completely different conditions." False. The differences between England, France, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, etc., on the one hand, and present-day Russia on the other, are "completely" not essential, because anyone who has not betrayed socialism knows that the substance of the matter lies in the dominance of the bourgeois class. In this respect, not "different" but identical conditions exist in all the named countries. National peculiarities change nothing in the fundamental question of bourgeois class dominance.

Argument 2nd. "Our" ministers entered into the composition of the "revolutionary" government. This is the most shameful deception of the people through the great word "revolution," which the Mensheviks and populists invoke to cover up their betrayal of it. For everyone knows that 10 out of 16 ministers in the present "revolutionary" government belong to parties of landowners and capitalists standing for imperialist war, for the non-publication of secret treaties, and these parties are now conducting counter-revolutionary policy. This was demonstrated most graphically by the elections to the district dumas of Petrograd on May 27–29, when all the Black Hundreds united behind the majority of our "revolutionary" government.

Argument 3rd. "Our" people entered "with a definite mandate to achieve universal peace through the agreement of peoples, rather than to prolong the imperialist war in the name of the liberation of nations through arms." First, this mandate is not at all "definite," for it means neither a definite program nor definite actions. It is empty words. It is the same as if a secretary of a workers' union went over for a salary of 10,000 rubles into the board of a capitalists' union "with a definite mandate" to achieve the welfare of workers rather than to prolong the dominance of capitalism. Second, all imperialists strive toward "the agreement of peoples"—both Wilhelm and Poincaré, etc.—this too is the emptiest phrase. Third, the war on Russia's part after May 6, 1917, is clearly being "prolonged," among other things, by the fact that our imperialist government has not yet proclaimed or proposed precise and clear conditions of peace, conditions for agreement.

Argument 4th. The goal of "our" people is "not the cessation of class struggle, but its continuation by means of the instruments of political power." Splendid! So, if one covers up a piece of filth with a good goal or a good "starting point for participation" in filth, then the deed is in the bag!! Participation in a bourgeois, imperialist government, which in reality conducts imperialist war, can, you see, be called "the continuation of class struggle by means of the instruments of political power." This is simply a pearl. We advise at every workers' and popular assembly to proclaim "hurrah" in honor of Chernov, Tsereteli, Peshekhonov, Skobelev, waging "class struggle" against Tereshchenko and Lvov and Co.

You will be laughed to death, gentlemen from the "department," defending ministerialism with such arguments. Besides, you are not original: the famous Vandervelde, the friend of Plekhanov (whom you scold, having, since entering the ministry, not a shadow of moral right to do so), Vandervelde said long ago that he too entered the ministry "for the continuation of class struggle."

Argument 5th. "Our" people entered after the overthrow of tsarism and the expulsion of the "enemies of the Russian proletariat" (i.e., Milyukov, Guchkov) "by the movement of revolutionary masses on April 20–21."

How are the French to blame if they overthrew autocracy not 100 days but 122 years ago? And the English more than 260 years ago? And the Italians dozens of years ago? And April 20th expelled Milyukov, replacing him with Tereshchenko, that is, changing absolutely nothing either in regard to classes or in regard to parties. New promises are not a new policy.

If one expels a metropolitan and replaces him with a pope, this does not mean ceasing to be a cleric.

Argument 6th. In Russia there is "complete freedom for the proletariat and the army." False, not complete. It is fuller than in other countries, and for that very reason it is all the more shameful to besmirch this young, still fresh freedom with the dirty business of participation in a bourgeois-imperialist government.

Russian traitors to socialism differ from European ones no more than a rapist differs from a seducer.

Argument 7th. "Moreover, the Russian proletariat possesses the means of complete control over its chosen representatives."

False. The party system is so young in Russia, the split among Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries so evident (Martov's semi-schism, the protests of Kamkov, his bloc with us in the elections against his own party; the bloc of Mensheviks and S.R.s with "Unity," which they themselves recognize as imperialist, etc.), that not only "complete" but even any serious control of the "proletariat" over ministers is absent.

And the proletariat is a class concept, which Mensheviks and populists have no right to use, since they rely more on the petty bourgeoisie. If you have begun to speak of classes, be precise!

Argument 8th. "The entry of representatives of the Russian socialist (??) proletariat (???) into the government in no way meant a weakening of the ties binding it to socialists of all countries waging struggle against imperialism, but on the contrary, signified the strengthening of these ties in the joint struggle for universal peace."

False. A phrase and a falsehood.

Everyone knows that entry into the ministry in Russia strengthened the ties uniting the supporters of imperialism, social-chauvinists, social-imperialists of all countries—Henderson and Co., Tom and Co., Scheidemann and Co.

Yes, and Scheidemann! For he understood that German social-imperialism will be saved in its pernicious influence on the working-class movement of the world if even the Russians, even with very great freedom, even during a revolution, went into a shameful alliance with their imperialist bourgeoisie.

*Pravda* No. 70, June 14 (1), 1917

Printed according to the text of the newspaper *Pravda*